Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Polls Heaven

View Poll Results: Should Abortion become illegal?
Should be legal on request 22 30.56%
Should be illegal with the exception for rape, incest, mother's physical health etc etc 13 18.06%
Should be legal but illegal after the mother enters a certain trimester 30 41.67%
Should be illegal with no exceptions 5 6.94%
Other. 2 2.78%
Who voted? Voters: 72
You may not vote on this poll

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 4760/4829
(03-Dec-2008 at 02:46)


Originally Posted by repcomment:
An entirely reasonable viewpoint, and one that is near to my views on the subject. In my opinion though, since we do not know when life begins, it seems unfair to force the mother to carry the pregnancy to term if it may not even be alive yet.
There is indeed that risk, but when balancing the consequences of each side being wrong: unnecessary inconvenience vs. murder, I think murder would be the far worse injustice.

Furthermore, if you are unsure of which injustice to risk, there's also the consideration of what you can do if you are wrong. An unjust inconvenience can be remedied, through either government support or private charity. On the other hand, you can't compensate the aborted child for being murdered. It's a permanent injustice.

Originally Posted by privatemessage:
You do make a fair point. I however can't bring myself to support forcing the mother to carry the thing to term unless we have definitive evidence that this thing is a living baby. It's an issue of forcing somebody to do something 'just in case' that I cannot get behind.
That's an interesting position. However, you should realize that that your statements merely reflect a presumption about where life begins or rather what constitutes sufficient evidence of life.

For example, life could very well begin when a child first speaks (a direct form of evidence that distinguishes us from most animals), or upon self sufficiency (ie. when parental support is no longer needed for the child to survive), or even never.

Never the less, I presume you feel it is reasonable for the government to "force" a mother (and father for that matter) to provide care for their 1 year old child/thing. I further expect you would be horrified if a mother cut off her 1 year old's head. But why?

Why should we be forcing these actions and inactions 'just in case' the kid is alive when some people feel there is insufficient evidence of human life? I would venture to guess because you think a birth is sufficient evidence of life to justify legal protections. Furthermore, the choice to birth the child by the mother constituted an assumption of responsibility for raising the child unless a foster parent can be found.

Likewise, I think conception itself is sufficient objective and direct evidence of a new human life deserving legal protection. Additionally, the choice by the mother (and father) to have sex was an assumption of the responsibilities of raising the child unless a foster parent can be found (unlikely until birth).

++++++++++++++++

Which one view is better? It’s debatable. Though I would like to point out one more reason that is often neglected as to why conception is the better point to presume life: Equality

Presently, a woman’s choice to have sex creates no legal obligations on her. She can legally go out the next day and exercise her freedom to “choose” whether she wants to be pregnant or not by getting an abortion.

However, a man’s choice to have sex immediately creates a legal obligation which is completely out of his control. He does not get to choose whether the pregnancy continues. Never the less, the woman’s choice alone to have a baby will legally bind the father to pay child support, and failure to pay support is a federal crime and a felony in most states.

How can you on the one hand say that a man should face legal consequences for deciding to have sex, and then turn around and say that you shouldn’t impose the same legal obligations on the woman because “she didn’t get to choose?” If sex is not a choice to have a baby, then neither party should be bound. The woman may have a right to flush the baby, but likewise if the man doesn’t want a child he should be able to renounce his child support obligations prior to birth of the child.

Clearly, however, that means of attaining equality while maintaining abortion on demand has problems. Many dead beat dads would refuse child support, and many more moms might decide to get an abortion as a consequence, fearing financial difficulty. Furthermore, those moms who don’t want to abort their babies for whatever reason would have to raise the child alone with no financial support.

Life at conception on the other hand eliminates inequity with none of the problems. Not only would you eliminate the moral dilemmas and uncertainty of whether you are committing murder, but you would also create greater equality with few or no negative externalities. Sex which previously bound only the man, would be the choice binding both the man and the woman equally to the consequences of unanticipated (or anticipated) pregnancy. Dead beat dads couldn’t get out of paying for child support. Uncaring or vindictive mothers couldn’t flush a willing father’s child.
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1343/1971
(03-Dec-2008 at 03:01)


Quote:
There is indeed that risk, but when balancing the consequences of each side being wrong: unnecessary inconvenience vs. murder, I think murder would be the far worse injustice.
No. You say that, because it is the word "murder" but you don't think about why murder is such a bad injustice in the first place, and whether abortion is bad for the same reasons.

Quote:
Likewise, I think conception itself is sufficient objective and direct evidence of a new human life deserving legal protection. Additionally, the choice by the mother (and father) to have sex was an assumption of the responsibilities of raising the child unless a foster parent can be found (unlikely until birth).
But it's not about whether it is alive. The "sanctity of life" argument is a complete crock of shit. It is about whether you are doing harm. It doesn't feel anything, doesn't think anything, it does not have conciousness, so killing it causes no more practical outcome than would not conceiving in the first place.

You keep using purely emotional arguments about the "sanctity of life", and don't stop to think that maybe that argument is bullshit, and doesn't take into account reason at all. Combine reason AND emotion for once. From reason you should conclude that pragmatically, abortion isn't doing any more harm than failure to conceive would.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#42  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3053/3642
(03-Dec-2008 at 04:34)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
Like what? Abandoning your child? Man, someone who does that definitely has the moral high ground over someone who aborts =\
Lesser of two evils, by a large margin.

Quote:
No it doesn't. You are implying that people get abortions just because they can, and not because it is a huge burden.
I was implying that plenty of women have gotten an abortion based on an impulsive fearful reaction or because they can't be inconvenienced over a significant matter, rather than because it's unaffordable.

Quote:
Your position implies that if I am too poor to raise a child, then I should not be allowed to have sex.
No, my position implies that your children are more significant than your money. My position implies that it's probably a sensible thing to wait until you are capable of taking care of a child or else putting the child up for adoption.

Quote:
This is the point I am trying to make. Now lets see if you can address it this time instead of going off on a tangent again.
What I said was utterly basic, I don't understand why it is so much of a problem for you to realize there are alternatives to abortion and that being poor is not an excuse for having one. I also do not see how even if it was a half-decent excuse, how it affects all the people who have an abortion that could afford to have a baby.

Quote:
Have some evidence to back it up? "Like Hurlin" doesn't count (not least of all because it isn't Hurlin...) because, as he isn't against abortion, it must be that the only reason he has children is because he got himself in a position where he was willing and able to raise them.
After how many times where he willingly put himself in a position to get rid of them and couldn't care less?

You know many parents who have a more joyful day in their life than when their children are born, I take it?

Quote:
Now, OK, if the woman goes ahead and has her child, she is unlikely to abandon it, and is unlikely not to love it, but that doesn't mean it is a good decision, it doesn't mean the child will be brought up well, and it CERTAINLY is not an argument for forcing her to have the child.
So she's going to kill a baby who otherwise she would love and treat it as the greatest thing to ever happen to her, and yet I'm immoral for wanting to prevent people from believing killing the greatest thing to ever happen to her should be prevented?

Quote:
I'll say it again - maybe having it twice in one post will make you address it.
Yeah, it would be nice if people learned things in one or two posts rather than going back and forth half a dozen times over a simple matter of intentionally of twisting words.

Quote:
What you are saying here is, "if you are too poor to support a child, or if your career doesn't allow you the time to raise a child, you should not be allowed to have sex".
Contrary to what you like to believe, abortion and raising a child are not the only two options. Not to mention, that is in the .1% chance that contraception fails and the chance that the woman will actually get pregnant.

Go look at the difference between abortion and adoption and how it affects your life:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literat...ure_9338aa.asp

Quote:
How, Greeney, is this a reasonable position?
How, Spectre, is it unreasonable to expect people to be responsible for their own doings?

Quote:
If it hasn't the capacity to think or feel, it wouldn't care. Do you think a rock would care whether it exists?

Yes, a fetus is more valuable than a rock, but it is not more concious, and it similarly would not care.
Eventually, the "fetus" learns care.
The rock is incapable of ever being something that can care.

Likewise, I suppose if I don't consider a post-vagina baby caring about whether it exists, I wouldn't be able to slam it against a wall?

Quote:
I might not say it exactly that way, but it's not entirely absurd... it is more or less the same as saying "once it has a CNS it is wrong to terminate it" which I think is a fairly reasonable statement.
Where as "once it is conceived it is wrong to terminate it" is an unfair statement, because some people are too poor to raise a child and should look down on themselves for giving a child up for adoption as a simple alternative?

Quote:
No. You say that, because it is the word "murder" but you don't think about why murder is such a bad injustice in the first place, and whether abortion is bad for the same reasons.
I'm sure he's spent as much time as you thinking about this subject.

Quote:
But it's not about whether it is alive. The "sanctity of life" argument is a complete crock of shit.
Exactly how I feel about the "poor people can't have sex" or "hello sperm" arguments.

Quote:
It is about whether you are doing harm. It doesn't feel anything, doesn't think anything, it does not have conciousness, so killing it causes no more practical outcome than would not conceiving in the first place.
And yet, for some reason, you have stated that (even though you believe it's the better of the evils, so to speak) it bothers you to kill this insignificant lack of matter who the parents will otherwise turn into the best thing that ever happened to them.

Quote:
You keep using purely emotional arguments about the "sanctity of life", and don't stop to think that maybe that argument is bullshit, and doesn't take into account reason at all.
Spectre, have you ever thought for a moment about the bullshit of some of your arguments? Do you realize how emotional you sound when you went off on the tangent about poor people and sex? I might be bias in this situation, but from my point of view RA3 wasn't actually seemed far more rational than emotional, especially in comparison to you and me.

Quote:
Combine reason AND emotion for once. From reason you should conclude that pragmatically, abortion isn't doing any more harm than failure to conceive would.
Until it reasonably reaches the area where your emotion kicks in and become too uncomfortable for you to justify an abortion, even though plenty of people (who think along the same lines as you're suggesting here) believe that having an abortion at 8.5 months isn't doing any more harm than failing to conceive would?

Originally Posted by Caelis666:
Isn't that a moral belief that you're forcing on me?
I thought the same thing.

If all else fails, call someone a troll.
that can be fixed... / Ć

Last edited by Greeney, 03-Dec-2008 at 04:39.
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Greeney Add Greeney to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1923/1988
Donated $2.08
(03-Dec-2008 at 06:51)


The point Spectre is trying to raise, and I believe you are avoiding, is that you are saying that if you are not ready to raise a child, you should not have sex. He's not saying that your argument is that poor people shouldn't have abortions. He's saying that from the premise "if you are not ready to raise a child, you should not have sex" you can easily get the conclusion "poor people should not have sex" which is a statement, I'm pretty sure, all ethical theories frown upon.

And what if, for example, you have sex, and three weeks later you get fired from your job?

Also, you are promoting adoption as if there were no downsides to it. The mother knows she's not going to keep it, so she has more incentive to be negletful to the child before it is born (poor nutrition, smoking, drinking, other drugs, etc). And while she won't have to support the child for life, she will have to carry it o term, so she will spend money for food, doctor appointments (not to mention lost wages from going to these appointments), in certain situations medications (pregnancy associated nausea can be quite severe, and medication for it is quite expensive - think over 100 bucks a month), hospitalization and the time lost from work due to hospitalization. And I could be really picky and add things like extra gas money, as the extra weight would make the car require more gas than usual, maternity clothing, etc, etc.

"Why should I have to work for everything?! It's like saying I don't deserve it!" - Calvin.
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Stewie Add Stewie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 533/742
(03-Dec-2008 at 10:48)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
There is indeed that risk, but when balancing the consequences of each side being wrong: unnecessary inconvenience vs. murder, I think murder would be the far worse injustice.

Furthermore, if you are unsure of which injustice to risk, there's also the consideration of what you can do if you are wrong. An unjust inconvenience can be remedied, through either government support or private charity. On the other hand, you can't compensate the aborted child for being murdered. It's a permanent injustice.
You could easily call forcing a mother to carry a child to term far worse than an 'unnecessary convenience', more like a direct violation of the basic human right to own your own body. Similarly, the qualification murder depends on malicious or intentional killing of a human being; when a woman has an abortion malice doesn't come into play, and the intention isn't to kill a human being but to stop a pregnancy. So, rephrased, which is the worse injustice; taking away the right to bodily integrity or stopping a pregnancy?

Similarly, having forced a woman to carry a child against her wishes, denying her basic rights, is also a permanent injustice. Taking away someones fundamental freedom isn't suddenly absolved with a subsequent government handout.

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
That's an interesting position. However, you should realize that that your statements merely reflect a presumption about where life begins or rather what constitutes sufficient evidence of life.

For example, life could very well begin when a child first speaks (a direct form of evidence that distinguishes us from most animals), or upon self sufficiency (ie. when parental support is no longer needed for the child to survive), or even never.

Never the less, I presume you feel it is reasonable for the government to "force" a mother (and father for that matter) to provide care for their 1 year old child/thing. I further expect you would be horrified if a mother cut off her 1 year old's head. But why?

Why should we be forcing these actions and inactions 'just in case' the kid is alive when some people feel there is insufficient evidence of human life? I would venture to guess because you think a birth is sufficient evidence of life to justify legal protections. Furthermore, the choice to birth the child by the mother constituted an assumption of responsibility for raising the child unless a foster parent can be found.

Likewise, I think conception itself is sufficient objective and direct evidence of a new human life deserving legal protection. Additionally, the choice by the mother (and father) to have sex was an assumption of the responsibilities of raising the child unless a foster parent can be found (unlikely until birth).
The mother is alive, the father is alive, her ovum is alive, his sperm are alive, the cell getting fertilized is alive, the zygote is alive, the embryo is alive, the baby is alive; since no element of the equation isn't alive, isn't the question where life starts clearly the wrong question? As you indicate yourself with your examples of speech and self-sufficiency, the question really isn't when life begins but 'what criteria make a (fully) human being?'.

Hence why noone will seriously doubt whether a one-year old is alive, but they might validly doubt whether they amount to a full human being. That largely depends on whether you can speak of it having an 'internal life'; feelings, thoughts, self-awareness. Surely those are better criteria in defining human-ness than 'being alive', which everything from plants to animals to humans to artifical intelligence could be said to share? That is the fundamental difference between a one-year-old and an embryo; the former has an internal life, the latter is only alive in an objective sense. That is also what the care expectation has to do with, it rests on the being actually being able to experience that care (or lack of it!).

Your brain is unique in the history of the universe. Use it wisely.
#45  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dusk Illz Add Dusk Illz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1344/1971
(03-Dec-2008 at 11:02)


Quote:
Lesser of two evils, by a large margin.
LOL are you serious? You think painlessly terminating a fetus that has never had consciousness is worse than leaving a baby in a dumpster?

Quote:
I was implying that plenty of women have gotten an abortion based on an impulsive fearful reaction or because they can't be inconvenienced over a significant matter, rather than because it's unaffordable.
So? So you think if a woman has high career ambitions, and those are shot to pieces because she suddenly falls pregnant, that that's it? Tough shit, you can 'afford' it, so your life's goals will never be achieved? It's disgusting! How can you take away her life like that? What's more important, the life of this fully grown, fully conscious woman, or a fetus? Give me a fucking break.

As for the rest, Stewie pretty much iterated my thoughts much better and more succinctly than I could have, so I won't repeat it.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2444/2825
(03-Dec-2008 at 19:24)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
There is indeed that risk, but when balancing the consequences of each side being wrong: unnecessary inconvenience vs. murder, I think murder would be the far worse injustice.

Furthermore, if you are unsure of which injustice to risk, there's also the consideration of what you can do if you are wrong. An unjust inconvenience can be remedied, through either government support or private charity. On the other hand, you can't compensate the aborted child for being murdered. It's a permanent injustice.
But we can use this kind of logic for everything. By the same logic we can forbid all car producers from making cars that go faster then say 40km. After all the inconvenience of driving slower is nothing compared to the thousands who die in car accidents each year . (and i think driving slower is a far lesser inconvenience the forcing a woman to endure 9 months of pregnancy against her wishes and quite often damage her profesional and academcial life)

Quote:
Life at conception on the other hand eliminates inequity with none of the problems.
except for the problems of the massive amount of illegal abortions who could claim the lives of hundreds of thousands of girls


Quote:
That's an interesting position. However, you should realize that that your statements merely reflect a presumption about where life begins or rather what constitutes sufficient evidence of life.
I think the problem with where life begins is only half of the issue. The other is that it is the woman's body and she should have a choice in it. That's why i strongly suport for woman to have this choice. If somebody can devleop artifical wombs and a safe way to transfer the embryo i can understand a ban on abortions the whole errign on the side of caution . But until then i think it's important for the woman to have a say on what happens with her body

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 03-Dec-2008 at 19:25.
#47  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1541/1631
(07-Dec-2008 at 03:40)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Greeney: View Post
use your ignore list feature

Ahhh thanx I completely forgot about this feature.

Fear is the foundation of most governments
Five years of banning
04-Dec-2002 Starfriend Spamming
11-Dec-2007 Saint Sinner Off-Topic Post
Happy Wooden anniversary
#48  
View Public Profile Find more posts by HarleyQuinnROX Add HarleyQuinnROX to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2172/2515
(03-Jan-2009 at 21:27)


It should be legal, but only when the baby is deemed too "grown" for lack of words, then it should be illegal. No need to abort an 8th month old baby (still in the womb.)
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Acadian9 Add Acadian9 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 51/93
(07-May-2009 at 21:40)
Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Caelis666: View Post
I think you are mistaken. Life an sich is not particularly special. We kill bugs because they annoy us, we kill animals for food, we kill trees for wood. All of these are forms of life. The question is not when does life begin? but when does human life begin?, where human here is used in the moral sense of the term and not the biological sense. On that regard, I completely fail to see how an unconscious, completely dependent bunch of growing cells could be called human life in the proper sense of the term.

Hence, I think there's absolutely no problem with abortion. I do think however that it should be discouraged to some extent, but that's mainly because there are so many people who take offense.
This is very true, and I agree. I don't understand how it is murder at any stage in the pregnancy. Also, the fact that a mother simply doesn't want the child in the first place is a factor. Many people say that it can't be that hard to carry a child to term but i'm of the opinion that most of them are male, and have no idea what they're talking about. Neither do i for that matter, so my thoughts may not be any use =\ but that's my opinion
#50  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Fanatic39 Add Fanatic39 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as DeRnhelm)
Posts: 487/539
Donated $11.54
(07-May-2009 at 23:01)


Should be legal until the kid is some months old after birth. It's not like it has any life anyway.

~ĐeRn~
BTW: You Are All Buffle Headed

Last edited by DeRnhelm, 07-May-2009 at 23:01.
#51  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DeRn HaLL Add DeRn HaLL to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2443/2515
(08-May-2009 at 00:51)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by DeRnhelm: View Post
Should be legal until the kid is some months old after birth. It's not like it has any life anyway.
I'm sorry, but the way I read your post, you say that the baby should be aborted/killed a few months after birth? Once the baby is born you cannot abort it. It would become murder. I do hope I misunderstood your post.
#52  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Acadian9 Add Acadian9 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 52/93
(08-May-2009 at 07:39)
Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Acadian9: View Post
I'm sorry, but the way I read your post, you say that the baby should be aborted/killed a few months after birth? Once the baby is born you cannot abort it. It would become murder. I do hope I misunderstood your post.
at birth, i'd say the baby is (more of less) selfaware. ish. before it is born i think it's fine. After, adoption or taking care of it yourself are the only options.
#53  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Fanatic39 Add Fanatic39 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2446/2515
(09-May-2009 at 00:27)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Fanatic39: View Post
at birth, i'd say the baby is (more of less) selfaware. ish. before it is born i think it's fine. After, adoption or taking care of it yourself are the only options.
So you support aborting a baby a day or two before it is born? Once that baby is born, aborting it would constitute murder.
#54  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Acadian9 Add Acadian9 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as DeRnhelm)
Posts: 488/539
Donated $11.54
(09-May-2009 at 13:18)


You didn't misread Life is overrated. There are X billion people with 'life'.

~ĐeRn~
BTW: You Are All Buffle Headed
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DeRn HaLL Add DeRn HaLL to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 901/904
(09-May-2009 at 18:38)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Michael1: View Post
I believe abortion should be legal without exception, but should be discouraged without exception.
Sounds about right.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
#56  
View Public Profile Find more posts by KnightoftheNite Add KnightoftheNite to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1904/2247
Donated $4.24
(31-May-2009 at 07:14)


Personally, I'm pro life, and hence, I voted for the option: "Should be illegal with the exception for rape, incest, mother's physical health etc etc". However, I don't believe that I have a right to decide whether someone else has or doesn't have an abortion.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege!
Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia - The Fear of Long Words
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Alexstrasza Add Alexstrasza to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1669/1971
(31-May-2009 at 15:12)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Alexstrasza: View Post
Personally, I'm pro life, and hence, I voted for the option: "Should be illegal with the exception for rape, incest, mother's physical health etc etc". However, I don't believe that I have a right to decide whether someone else has or doesn't have an abortion.
Isn't that a complete contradiction? "I don't think I have the right to decide whether someone else has or doesn't have an abortion, but I don't think they should be allowed to choose to"......

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Celtic20)
Posts: 359/410
(31-May-2009 at 19:11)


Re: Should Abortion be illegal?

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
Isn't that a complete contradiction? "I don't think I have the right to decide whether someone else has or doesn't have an abortion, but I don't think they should be allowed to choose to"......
That pretty much sums up how I feel.

I'm not a fan of abortions but i don't think it should be my right to restrict other peoples rights.
#59  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Celtic22 Add Celtic22 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1258/1637
(03-Jun-2009 at 06:32)
Why waste money on an abortion when strangulation is so much cheaper.
#60  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parties to be illegal in Miami? KnightoftheNite Respectable General Discussions 10 20-Jan-2007 13:08
Abortion, again filcher Respectable General Discussions 6 31-May-2006 20:24
Government Imposition of Values: Walmart and Abortion Royal Assassin3 Respectable General Discussions 47 17-Feb-2006 04:11
Abortion T-Shirt Michael1 Respectable General Discussions 50 31-Jul-2004 05:08
Abortion Lord Hawk The Lunatic Asylum 26 04-Apr-2003 21:36


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 20:52.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.